Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• market_summaryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output concept (daily breadth counts) and the temporal scope ('today'), but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any latency or side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core concept ('overall market breadth') and then defining it concretely. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return concept. It is adequate, though without annotations it omits any caveats about data scope, update frequency, or interpretation of 'today' — but these are minor given the simplicity of the tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none, and it does not introduce any implicit parameter confusion.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific resource ('overall market breadth') and a clear metric (counts of shares rose/fell/flat). It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_stock, top_movers, and search_stock, which focus on individual stocks or rankings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. The description implies usage through the phrase 'overall market breadth,' but it does not state when to choose this over top_movers or get_stock.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• top_moversA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that ranking uses percent change rather than absolute taka and defines each direction mode. However, it does not mention ordering behavior, session semantics, or limits, leaving some behavior to be inferred.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The ranking rationale is a valuable clarification rather than filler, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter read-only screener, the description covers the critical semantics: valid directions and the ranking methodology. The output schema covers the return shape, and the main remaining gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description adds significant meaning by enumerating all valid direction values and clarifying what each represents. The 'limit' parameter is not described in prose, but its name and integer default are sufficiently self-explanatory.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with 'Biggest percentage movers of the session,' which clearly defines the tool's resource and scope. The enumerated direction modes ('gainers', 'losers', 'volume', 'value') make it unmistakable that this is a market-wide screener, distinct from siblings like get_stock or search_stock which target individual tickers.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over market_summary or the stock-specific siblings. The usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• search_stockA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only substring search, which is straightforward, but it does not disclose details like case sensitivity, match limits, or empty-result behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence with examples conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. The key scoping information ('DSE trading codes', 'containing a substring') is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could add a brief note on return format or matching behavior, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema only defines 'query' as a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the essential meaning: the query is a substring matched against DSE trading codes, and the examples illustrate expected input values.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('DSE trading codes'), and a precise matching rule ('containing a substring') with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock, top_movers, and market_summary.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use the tool: when you have a partial stock code and need matching codes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when an exact code is already known.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• get_stockA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: codes are exchange short symbols, examples are provided, and matching is case-insensitive. It does not mention edge cases like invalid codes or data freshness, but for a simple lookup tool these are minor.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by necessary code-format guidance and a sibling routing tip. Every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers input semantics, examples, and when to use the sibling tool. It could briefly mention behavior for unknown codes, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and existing output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: it defines what 'codes' means, gives concrete examples, and clarifies case-insensitivity, which is essential for correct invocation. This far exceeds the bare schema definition.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Look up'), resource ('current prices'), and scope ('specific DSE trading codes'). It also differentiates from siblings by naming search_stock as the tool for partial-name lookups, making the purpose unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear when-to-use context: when you have specific DSE trading codes. It explicitly names an alternative and the condition for using it: 'Use search_stock if you only know part of a name.' This provides actionable routing without ambiguity.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.